Let's talk about bitcoin's image

[alani123]

First of all, I'd like to begin by saying that this discussion wouldn't be as beneficial if most participants were not at least trying to step it out of the strictly pro-bitcoin stance participants of this forum typically have.

It's safe to assume that the average bitcointalker doesn't fit the profile of a regulator, an academic researcher or a corporate executive. However, these people might be in the positions with the most influence in regards to bitcoin's adoption as well as public perception and overall success. So let's try not to form a circlejerk in this thread while considering the following: Corporations and banks are passively diluting the public's perception on bitcoin by lying about what the blockchain is.

The hypothesis highlighted in discussed in this article that the average bitcoin user might not even be aware of the proceedings of the average "blockchain" conference, where many influential individuals are actually first learning about bitcoin nowdays, finds me in agreement.

In this forum, we might all agree that POW is the most robust way to trustlessly secure decentralized digital cash transactions. We probably all agree that a blockchain without a currency and a decentralized peer network has little to no purpose and also I'm sure that the vast majority of this forum would consider BTC's blockchain as the most secure and trustless. And if examined through objective criteria like metrics and statistics, those viewpoints probably hold well.

But is the community aware of the extent the corporate world largely attempts to undermine those notions? Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

[BrewMaster]

In this forum, we might all agree that POW is the most robust way to trustlessly secure decentralized digital cash transactions.

i disagree. PoW works well for bitcoin and will continue that way because of its decentralization and the fact that the hashrate keeps on growing and currently it is at a stage that it costs a ridiculous amount of money to control a small percentage of the hashrate.
otherwise PoW on its own in general is not a magical solution to secure any cryptocurrency. you can take a look at dozens of altcoins that were 51% attacked including those with moderately high hashrate like bcash that one or two entities control nearly the entire hashrate.

But is the community aware of the extent the corporate world largely attempts to undermine those notions? Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

what you refer to as "brainwashing" has been happening ever since bitcoin was created. it has been under constant attacks and there are thousands of FUDs against it. all the while it keeps on growing without taking any effects from any of them.

"bitcoin's image" isn't what some 89 year old elderly, a bankster or some random idiot on twitter says. the real "bitcoin's image" is a network that has been running for 11 years with a growing user base, rising price and is currently handling millions of dollars worth of transaction per day without fault.

[tsaroz]

The image of bitcoin held by some media and government as a tool to fund terrorism and boost money laundering is not a valid reasoning. Bitcoin is a tool and if it were not bitcoin, it would have been something else. And about it's other image as a sure shot way to profit, I personally believe bitcoin is inflated much more than it's price and is still a large bubble. Though that hasn't stopped me from buying more cause I know the profit are more lucrative in comparison to the risk involved.

[keeee]

The image of bitcoin held by some media and government as a tool to fund terrorism and boost money laundering is not a valid reasoning. Bitcoin is a tool and if it were not bitcoin, it would have been something else. And about it's other image as a sure shot way to profit, I personally believe bitcoin is inflated much more than it's price and is still a large bubble. Though that hasn't stopped me from buying more cause I know the profit are more lucrative in comparison to the risk involved.

Well in the view of bitcoin users like us,  we can say that bitcoin was really good and helpful since we already experienced it to get huge profit but for the eyes of the non believer of crypto the image of bitcoin wasnt good.  In fact they always think that it was scam and thats the reason why they dont want to try it.

[hatshepsut93]

But is the community aware of the extent the corporate world largely attempts to undermine those notions? Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

You are correct here, when I see a forum member talk about crypto and blockchain technology as if it's the same thing, I always reply to them with an explanation how they are radically different things aimed at very different groups of users.

But I don't believe that Bitcoin would suffer too much, for starters the blockchain bubble was in 2017 and was started by Bitcoin's bubble, not vice versa, now we potentially have another Bitcoin rally, but alts and corporate blockchain hype are lagging behind - so there's no strong and two-sided correlation here. Plus these "blockchain bros" are doing their best to distance themselves from Bitcoin by saying how old and bad it is, so its another reason why Bitcoin won't be affected much.

[HabBear]

Corporations and banks are passively diluting the public's perception on bitcoin by lying about what the blockchain is.

Corporations aren't diluting the public's perception about bitcoin by lying about what blockchain is, they're diluting the public's perception about bitcoin by lying about what bitcoin is and how drastically bitcoin improves upon the current global payment system.

The best performing corporations are deeply focused on how to use blockchain for their benefit. The benefits of the technology are undeniable and finally Corporations have started to realize that...they give a shit now. And they feel zero obligation to share that interest with the public because they way they intend to use blockchain doesn't impact the public. Their focus is on how blockchain can improve their internal processes.

Separately, Corporations (some) lie about what Bitcoin is and how much value it has in our current financial system. They lie about it because they are a financial institution (investment firm, Western Union) whose profit is threatened by Bitcoin.

Governments dilute bitcoin's perception by saying "we're creating a digital currency!" and letting the public falsely believe that it's their own "bitcoin". Obviously it isn't, and all the governments are doing is accepting blockchain as the most superior transaction technology in the history of the world. Which is great! But it's not cryptocurrency. And it allows the government greater control and oversight into the transactions happening with their currency.

But is the community aware of the extent the corporate world largely attempts to undermine those notions? Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

NO! We need to support government and corporate interest in blockchain because it validates that Bitcoin is right, and just, and correct, and superior.

We all need to do a better job telling NEW people about the benefits of blockchain and bitcoin, and stop talking so much in the echo chamber that is this forum.

Here's how that talk goes:

(1) Hey [Friend/Family] did you know Google just got into the business of blockchain? Yeah, it's incredible what they're doing with it. In fact, a lot of corporations are looking at how to use blockchain to secure the transfer of information - from accounting transactions to medical records to voting!

---allow them to respond, ask questions

(2) Yeah, that's why I've been such a fan of Bitcoin. I can't believe that in the year 2020 it still takes 3 days for me to send money to you or my [parents/son/daughter], i mean it'd be faster for me to [drive/fly] it to your house!

---allow that to sink in for a moment

(3) It's so great that big business is starting to realize how valuable blockchain and how it's use for bitcoin and other things can make our society better

[DooMAD]

First of all, I'd like to begin by saying that this discussion wouldn't be as beneficial if most participants were not at least trying to step it out of the strictly pro-bitcoin stance participants of this forum typically have.

(...)

Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

I take it you didn't appreciate my response in the other topic, then?  But honestly, that's exactly the kind of thing we should be explaining to the public.  It's not just a "pro-bitcoin stance", to say that corporate blockchains have little to offer.  I genuinely think people will be able to tell the difference between a permissioned chain and Bitcoin once they can see them both in action.  The problem at the moment is that there's not much for them to see other than a bunch of corporate hype and buzzwords.

[davis196]

Banks and corporations want to implement blockchain technology as long as this blockchain technology remains their own property. No corporation or bank has any interest into creating something open-source,being transparent and available for free.It's all about control.Adopting real blockchain technology means that the corporation has to let go of the control(in one form or another).
This corporate mindset will never change.There's nothing we can do about it.

[Asmonist]

Bitcoin's image for me is like an indi film turn to blockbuster film. It was about 11years from now since it existed. Only few believe it and invest on it. Now many had line for it and others make their own coin with bitcoin's inspiration. Its really a big bang for everyone and good for those who has invested on it earlier.

[Artemis3]

Banks and corporations want to implement blockchain technology as long as this blockchain technology remains their own property. No corporation or bank has any interest into creating something open-source,being transparent and available for free.It's all about control.Adopting real blockchain technology means that the corporation has to let go of the control(in one form or another).
This corporate mindset will never change.There's nothing we can do about it.

And this doesn't matter for Bitcoin. Let them be. Blockchain conferences? Who cares, its their problem. How could this possibly be undermining Bitcoin? You think people are stupid enough to drop their bitcoins and run to a corporate/bank/gov blockchain, simply because it uses "blockchain"? Hey, world's worst most centralized crypto uses blockchain, so what? The market isn't stupid to fall for it.

They could even open source their projects, its the data itself that matters. In fact they would be wise to do so, so the community could catch bugs, but then again why would the community help them, whats in for others? Some of the altcoins are doing this already don't they? Isn't Ripple offered to banks? Just look at how centralized it is, pure garbage. But i guess they don't care as long as the wire transfer completes. Unless one day something nasty happens and they lose money, who knows... Its a private club.

[alizarosa3123]

The image of Bitcoin on my part is analogous to an indie film appearance blockbuster film. It was about 11 years from now to the present. Very few people believe in it and contribute to it. There were many lines for it at present. Create their own currency inspired by Bitcoin. It’s actually a huge explosion for everyone and useful to those who have contributed to it before.

[FanatMonet]

It is clear that everyone who receives large incomes right now, in an established financial system, will not be particularly interested in any changes, especially such cardinal ones. Yes, and constant price cracking, also not in the best way affect the image of cryptocurrencies.

[mrongoz22]

Currently there are two negative stigmas that make people still afraid when they want to implement bitcoin, there are still many who consider bitcoin as terrorist financing and money laundering, but in a bitcoin perspective like us, we can say bitcoin is really good, bitcoin has been proven to change our economy. ..

[verita1]

Starting from this premise. I could say that fortunately we are already making use of blockchains in the real world and it is only the beginning.

Imagine a few years from now, after all the investment, de-regulation and man hours, what if no real world use had proven to benefit from the "blockchains" that corporations were working on? Investors will back out, developers will have to find work in other fields and politicians might scale back favorable regulation, thus hurting crypto-finance through collateral damage.

According to this article: It mentions How Venezuelans have tried their luck on Binance P2P as their main source of income.

I am sure it is a case that was replicated in any corner of the planet if we talk about use cases of blockchains in the real world.

https://twitter.com/Binance_Spanish/status/1385655007408754690?s=19

[franky1]

the barry silbert crowd(blockstream/greyscale) want to paint their non-blockchain different decimal tokens as if they are the same as bitcoin.
they have not just a toe dipped in the water but a whole torso involved in bitcoin. everything from exchanges(coinbase). media(coindesk) and even the bitcoin development(blockstream)

they are tarnishing bitcoin by stfling the transaction count onchain. limiting its utility with silly cludgy fee math. and then advertising their altcoins/alt-nets as being just like bitcoin or better.

[DooMAD]

and even the bitcoin development(blockstream)

And you, being the totalitarian dictator you are, would like them to stop, right?  You voluntarily enter into an open source, permissionless environment and then you start trying to dictate who is and isn't allowed to code stuff.  Or what they are and aren't allowed to code.  You are the epitome of an egomaniac.

they are tarnishing bitcoin by stfling the transaction count onchain.

Some would argue it's the continued agreement of those who secure the chain that limits the number of onchain transactions.  But I'm sure you'll tell us in great detail how you (and only you) believe it's actually your boogeymen accomplishing that, though.   

limiting its utility

You know what would really limit its utility?  If it were to become centralised, like it probably would if you had your way.

[capcaypro]

actually, if we look at bitcoin, it is actually very good for those who want to learn properly about bitcoin because this is certainly very good for the economic growth that runs it.
the real problem is when parties who feel aggrieved due to bitcoin are created, one of which is the government who feels this is dangerous and people who feel disadvantaged by bitcoin.
so that created those who began to hate bitcoin by giving negative news about bitcoin.
specifically for the government, it should probably not be harmed, it should be happy with the existence of bitcoin, the actors in this country can be very successful but because of a lack of income it seems that the government strictly prohibits bitcoin and makes rules about bitcoin such as taxes etc. because with things like that they will still benefit without doing anything because our benefits will be felt by them.

[buwaytress]

First of all, I'd like to begin by saying that this discussion wouldn't be as beneficial if most participants were not at least trying to step it out of the strictly pro-bitcoin stance participants of this forum typically have.

I think that's a slight overestimation of who you think the forum participants are. Yes, almost by virtue of being an active member, they're pro-Bitcoin, but they're hardly the raving lunatics you see on CT selling the shirts off their back for every satoshi they can get.

It's safe to assume that the average bitcointalker doesn't fit the profile of a regulator, an academic researcher or a corporate executive.

Not sure when anyone assumed otherwise;)

Corporations and banks are passively diluting the public's perception on bitcoin by lying about what the blockchain is.

But is the community aware of the extent the corporate world largely attempts to undermine those notions? Bitcoin could suffer from collateral damage if this disastrous brainwashing keeps propagating a dotcom style bubble around blockchain. Shouldn't we be doing more to divert corporate enthusiasm about blockchains towards an actual blockchain? I would go as far as to argue that informing the public is a responsibility of experienced cryptocurrency users.

I thought we weren't going to circlejerk? It's not a conspiracy. Corps and banks are expected to serve their own purposes. They're not lying about what the blockchain is, they simply use the truths convenient to them. Or in worst case, they only don't understand the tech as well as they should be. That's not just okay, that's to be expected.

[fiulpro]

Since you said blockchain does not have any real world application without cryptos. As mentioned "

We probably all agree that a blockchain without a currency and a decentralized peer network has little to no purpose and also I'm sure that the vast majority of this forum would consider BTC's blockchain as the most secure and trustless

So here is a simple image taken from google. I do think you understand for a fact that blockchain is actually getting more and more integrated in the society and it's uses are numerous.
(img taken from google)


Other than that I do think we have to talk about your perception of the people here. Well people are here academically strong !! What gives you the idea that it's more like a social media platform but for pro-bitcoiners.

The banks and the corporations are honestly too involved and focused on dominating the whole economic system perse that they don't even consider researching about Blockchain and cryptocurrencies. How many times have you seen them blaming bitcoins for illegal activities well yes a part of it is being used undoubtedly. 10% ! But that's way less than what part of fiat is being used inappropriately. I do think they are just scared that a more transparent system would end the long leap that corruption had since centuries.